• Donald Trump printed out made-up £300bn Nato invoice and handed it to Angela Merkel
    100 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;52017492]NATO has been destabilizing for a long time before the fall of the soviet union and even now it hasn't got any purpose beyond being an alliance.[/QUOTE] Y'know, since the formation of NATO there hasn't been a major war in Europe in nearly a hundred years and I think people don't realize just how fucking unprecedented that is and how much NATO has to do with that Saying it has no purpose, to me, is just demonstrating how little someone knows about the alliance and what it actually does on a daily basis just by existing
[QUOTE=Sitkero;52017669]Y'know, since the formation of NATO there hasn't been a major war in Europe in nearly a hundred years and I think people don't realize just how fucking unprecedented that is and how much NATO has to do with that[/QUOTE] Mmmm, How about those small wars. eh?
I don't believe this is true. Sounds pretty fake to me. [editline]27th March 2017[/editline] [url]https://www.businessinsider.com.au/300bn-nato-bill-germany-merkel-trump-white-house-2017-3?r=US&IR=T[/url] Who the fuck knows.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;52017697]Mmmm, How about those small wars. eh?[/QUOTE] Ha ha oh boy you sure got me there, epic zinger dude! Except not really because the vast majority of conflicts in Europe since the formation of NATO have been internal conflicts like civil wars and revolutions and they've steadily become less commonplace as Europe stabilized after the second world war, and the majority of them didn't even occur in NATO member states, and that holds true even today. Off the top of my head the closest thing I think of resembling war within the NATO states in the last ten years has been the unrest in Albania involving Kosovo It's true that there's unrest, there always is, but I don't think you realize how significant it is that, again, there have been no major wars in Europe for nigh on a hundred years. No two major powers of Europe have fully mobilized their military assets and invaded each other's soil in nearly a century Unless you count Russia, I guess, what with that whole annexing Crimea and invading Georgie and Ukraine thing. Even that hasn't escalated to full scale war just yet, though
[QUOTE=Sitkero;52017214]Whether he did this or not it should be deeply disconcerting to everyone that trump has so little respect for NATO and this attitude towards NATO members makes it look like he has [I]no fucking clue[/I] just how hugely important NATO is to the United States strategically and economically, as well as a large part of the world There's some good [url=https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4undy0/trump_doubles_down_on_nato_comments_we_have_to/d5rll38/]reddit[/url] [url=https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/5oqhuk/does_nato_still_benefit_us_strategic_interests/dclmlcq/]comments[/url] that sum most of it up better than I ever could[/QUOTE] Europe is more than rich enough to be its own counterweight to Russia, the US shouldn't have to subsidise their defense. This isn't the way to go about making that happen, but when issues go unaddressed (or are perceived to be unaddressed) for long enough, a lot of people will just be happy something, [i]anything[/i], is finally being done, even if they know there were better ways to go about doing that.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;52017720]I don't believe this is true. Sounds pretty fake to me. [editline]27th March 2017[/editline] [url]https://www.businessinsider.com.au/300bn-nato-bill-germany-merkel-trump-white-house-2017-3?r=US&IR=T[/url] Who the fuck knows.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I doubt it's true either, or at least it's so up in the air that we won't find out - I doubt Angela Merkel would go out and confirm or deny the rumour. If this hadn't been Trump we wouldn't even be wondering whether it's real, though.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;52018108]Europe is more than rich enough to be its own counterweight to Russia, the US shouldn't have to subsidise their defense. This isn't the way to go about making that happen, but when issues go unaddressed (or are perceived to be unaddressed) for long enough, a lot of people will just be happy something, [i]anything[/i], is finally being done, even if they know there were better ways to go about doing that.[/QUOTE] You do know that NATO isn't just some giant money hole for the US that all the European states are leeching off of, right? Being a part of NATO and having free access to basically every location of strategic value in pretty much [I]the whole of fucking Europe[/I] is kind of a big deal and a big chunk of what makes the US a [I]global[/I] superpower. The US enjoys a sphere of influence larger than any other country on Earth largely because of its position as the big stick in NATO and that position gives it a huge amount of soft and hard power projection
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52015940]This argument kinda hinges on the notion that the US spends a lot to pick up the slack isn't just a post-rationalization of the US' military budget. Would the US really accept a lowering of its own power projection capabilities because Denmark started paying more? I doubt it - the US likes its aircraft carriers, and I doubt very much that they would want to rely on its allies for stuff like that. The US is free to lower its military budget, and if the theory is correct, its NATO allies would increase their spending correspondingly.[/QUOTE] Nah. What's happening in the real world is that the rest of NATO knows the US enjoys its power projection and won't willingly give it up. So they cut back on spending, cut back on military investment, and if Russia starts getting threatening they can count on the US to bail them out, because the US military isn't going anywhere. The biggest reason many NATO members have been behind the US and UK in terms of military development for the past few decades despite continued security threats is that they don't actually feel threatened as long as the US has their back. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that there was such enormous wailing and gnashing of teeth when Trump threatened [I]not[/I] to have the backs of any members that aren't pulling their weight, because it completely upset the security paradigm they've come to expect. In a world where every NATO member pulled their fair share there wouldn't have been any reason for Trump to make that threat, let alone for anyone to react to it with the pearl-clutching that we saw. So sure, the US is going to spend a lot on defense whether the rest of NATO does or not, and maintaining NATO is in our best interests, at the very least because it gives us free access to Europe. But if the rest of NATO cuts back their spending expecting the US to protect them, then they're not holding up their end of the bargain.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52015205]The invoice was fake, not the official estimates based on their shortcomings. [editline]26th March 2017[/editline] Doesn't really do much to destabilize relations because Germany needs us.[/QUOTE] Its totally ok that our president acts like a 10 year old because the Germans can't afford to denounce us? The fuck kind of justification is that?
That's both stupid and cheeky as fuck
Is he doing this to try and fund the wall he wants so bad? Promises must be kept people, even at the expense of strong alliances!
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52015708][media]https://twitter.com/IvoHDaalder/status/843105912319565825[/media] Former US ambassador for NATO, there's more tweets if you want to read.[/QUOTE] It may not work like that, but the question is if maybe it should.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52018595] Which is why it doesn't surprise me that there was such enormous wailing and gnashing of teeth when Trump threatened [I]not[/I] to have the backs of any members that aren't pulling their weight, because it completely upset the security paradigm they've come to expect. In a world where every NATO member pulled their fair share there wouldn't have been any reason for Trump to make that threat, let alone for anyone to react to it with the pearl-clutching that we saw.[/QUOTE] NATO was founded with the principle of collective defence in article 5 when you say that you don't have the backs of members, you're not causing "wailing and gnashing of teeth" because suddenly the 'freeloaders' are getting caught out, you're causing complaint because you're defying the [I]entire point of the NATO alliance [/I] what trump is doing is so blatantly bad that anyone who doesn't see why it's bad should take a class in politics, or read up on the reasons for article 5 in the context of the cold war
[QUOTE=Whoaly;52018622]It may not work like that, but the question is if maybe it should.[/QUOTE] No one is asking that question except you and it's absolute nonsense. "Hey, not only should you spend more on your military but you should also pay us for spending so much on OUR military even though it's out of our own discretion!", why's no one questioning how Trump cut spending on a lot of other things to specifically increase the defense budget, if he's complaining about spending too much on it "for the sake of the EU", you're buying into his manipulative bullshit.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52018625]NATO was founded with the principle of collective defence in article 5 when you say that you don't have the backs of members, you're not causing "wailing and gnashing of teeth" because suddenly the 'freeloaders' are getting caught out, you're causing complaint because you're defying the [I]entire point of the NATO alliance [/I] what trump is doing is so blatantly bad that anyone who doesn't see why it's bad should take a class in politics, or read up on the reasons for article 5 in the context of the cold war[/QUOTE] NATO was founded with the principle of [I]collective[/I] defense in article 5. When you say that you (general you) won't maintain a reasonable amount of military spending because the US covers it, you're causing complaint because you're defying [I]the entire point of the NATO alliance[/I]. This cuts both ways. I'm not saying threatening NATO is a good thing, but if NATO members aren't willing to uphold their end of collective defense, they have no right to complain about the US doing the same. I'd rather see NATO continue than be weakened or dissolved because it is [I]hugely[/I] important, but that means all members contributing their fair share, because as it stands the simple fact of it is that the US subsidizes Europe's security.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;52018622]It may not work like that, but the question is if maybe it should.[/QUOTE] It should not.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52018595][B]Nah. What's happening in the real world is that the rest of NATO knows the US enjoys its power projection and won't willingly give it up. So they cut back on spending, cut back on military investment, and if Russia starts getting threatening they can count on the US to bail them out, because the US military isn't going anywhere.[/B] The biggest reason many NATO members have been behind the US and UK in terms of military development for the past few decades despite continued security threats is that they don't actually feel threatened as long as the US has their back. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that there was such enormous wailing and gnashing of teeth when Trump threatened [I]not[/I] to have the backs of any members that aren't pulling their weight, because it completely upset the security paradigm they've come to expect. In a world where every NATO member pulled their fair share there wouldn't have been any reason for Trump to make that threat, let alone for anyone to react to it with the pearl-clutching that we saw. So sure, the US is going to spend a lot on defense whether the rest of NATO does or not, and maintaining NATO is in our best interests, at the very least because it gives us free access to Europe. But if the rest of NATO cuts back their spending expecting the US to protect them, then they're not holding up their end of the bargain.[/QUOTE] With the part in bold, it seems that we basically agree - the US isn't going to cut back on its spending, because the US doesn't simply want a defensive alliance to protect everyone, it wants a large military for its own operations. Denmark at large has no such interest, and wants to spend its money elsewhere. What is the bargain of NATO exactly? As far as I'm aware, there has never been a spending requirement (otherwise Iceland would've never gotten in), and if the US doesn't like that, they can simply drop out of the most powerful alliance ever. Would that put the US in a better position? Probably not - and you of course agree. I'd argue that even if NATO allies were spending even less, they're making the US military bill smaller (at least if the US wanted an equal amount of influence) - more countries in your alliance means less in your enemy's, and the US is in an alliance with some of the most powerful countries in the world. NATO allies won't raise spending if there is no popular support, and after the financial crisis you'll have to look long and hard for any. The US won't drop out (or threaten to) of NATO, because it wouldn't benefit them, so really why are we discussing this? If the US stopped spending so much, other countries might increase their spending, but that's really it - right now NATO is seen as being more than strong enough, so what reason does other countries have to increase their spending? No one's preventing the US from decreasing their spending, so if this "we're spending so much because you're spending so little" excuse is more than a post-rationalization, the US can put their money where their mouth is and decrease their spending to 2% of GDP (perhaps over a number of years). I can respect that Denmark needs to spend money for its own protection, but I can't respect wasting more money on the military than strictly needed - that money could and should go towards improving lives instead. I also don't see US military spending as a direct consequence of other NATO countries' spending: [url]http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US-DK-FR-GB-DE-NO-ES-PT-IT[/url] Most countries' spending has been going down since 1990, and the US spending seems to mostly correlate with the wars its implicated in, not other countries' spending - and if you look at it historically, the US spending is almost as low as it has ever been in modern times: [IMG]https://www.sdvfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/milexp-percentage-gdp.jpg[/IMG] I have absolutely no confidence that the US would decrease its spending if we spent more, and I don't - as you mention - see any reason why we should spend money on tanks and planes we don't need when they could go towards more useful stuff. If the US wants other countries to spend more, it's gonna have play with some realpolitik. It doesn't help matters that Denmark increasing its spending because the US said so could easily be construed as the US simply pressuring Denmark to put money into US industries - people weren't happy about buying those F-35s in the first place, but raising military spending when other sectors are seeing cutbacks, just to buy US military equipment, would be political suicide. It's not gonna happen. I'd imagine other NATO countries are going through the same thought processes.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52018708]NATO was founded with the principle of [I]collective[/I] defense in article 5. When you say that you (general you) won't maintain a reasonable amount of military spending because the US covers it, you're causing complaint because you're defying [I]the entire point of the NATO alliance[/I].[/QUOTE] Collective defense means that everyone will gang up on you if you attack country within NATO, it allows smaller countries to spend their resources on other things while the bigger power countries spend theirs on military which means a lot of countries are committing to the agreement. The big EU countries are also already increasing their contributions to military spending too. So if you're using collective defense as your argument, you're giving reason to the smaller countries NOT increasing spending on military as the treaty allows such. The EU has already been paying compensation to the US anyway when they activated article 5 after 9/11 in which we've been participating for over a decade now resulting in Europe being the big target for terrorist attacks since then.
This is me in Business 200: Accounting and Financing for Non-Business Majors.
[URL="https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/the-german-government-denies-reports-that-trump-gave-merkel?utm_term=.oj1xMqjjry#.vnBbygBBpP"]Fake News[/URL]
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52019272][URL="https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/the-german-government-denies-reports-that-trump-gave-merkel?utm_term=.oj1xMqjjry#.vnBbygBBpP"]Fake News[/URL][/QUOTE] Good to know. Still it's hard to know where the floor of pettiness is with Trump.
Media outlets seriously need to stop feeding Trump "fake news" ammo. Shit like this actually gives his childish crying legitimacy.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52019420]Media outlets seriously need to stop feeding Trump "fake news" ammo. Shit like this actually gives his childish crying legitimacy.[/QUOTE] I agree, seems super counter-productive. The thread about Trump transmission staff purging their electronic devices also smells fake to me. Either way, to continue the discussion of the US and NATO military budgets, I made a calculation of what the US could save - TODAY - if NATO could remain safe by having every country spend 2% of its GDP: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/XwBsaqh.png[/IMG] The US alone (or well, almost) is spending so much that it could cut its budget by about 25% and still pull every other country up to that recommended spending when we're talking actual dollars. So if the US is simply "picking up the slack" why the fuck is it spending so much more than it needs to? By my calculations, the US could cut its spending to 2.5% GDP, which is admittedly still 0.5% more than what NATO countries are supposed to spend ideally, and pick up the slack from literally everyone who is currently spending less. What's the point of having other countries spend more when the US is - seemingly very willingly, considering the extra 50b in Trump's new budget - picking up the slack three times over already?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52019504]I agree, seems super counter-productive. The thread about Trump transmission staff purging their electronic devices also smells fake to me. Either way, to continue the discussion of the US and NATO military budgets, I made a calculation of what the US could save - TODAY - if NATO could remain safe by having every country spend 2% of its GDP: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/XwBsaqh.png[/IMG] The US alone (or well, almost) is spending so much that it could cut its budget by about 25% and still pull every other country up to that recommended spending when we're talking actual dollars. So if the US is simply "picking up the slack" why the fuck is it spending so much more than it needs to? By my calculations, the US could cut its spending to 2.5% GDP, which is admittedly still 0.5% more than what NATO countries are supposed to spend ideally, and pick up the slack from literally everyone who is currently spending less. What's the point of having other countries spend more when the US is - seemingly very willingly, considering the extra 50b in Trump's new budget - picking up the slack three times over already?[/QUOTE] Very good point, but ultra-minor detail: Iceland is exempt from the military spending requirement. The US was responsible for military defense of Iceland under a pre-NATO agreement, and Norway (and maybe Denmark?) allow Icelanders to join their military and receive military education. Iceland pays their way by granting use of land (they're a critical part of monitoring Russia's submarine fleet) and by contributing to administrative costs. They maintain no army, but they do have a coast guard and a counter-terrorism unit (which has actually gotten involved in Iraq, despite being nominally a police unit and not military).
[QUOTE=gman003-main;52019716]Very good point, but ultra-minor detail: Iceland is exempt from the military spending requirement. The US was responsible for military defense of Iceland under a pre-NATO agreement, and Norway (and maybe Denmark?) allow Icelanders to join their military and receive military education. Iceland pays their way by granting use of land (they're a critical part of monitoring Russia's submarine fleet) and by contributing to administrative costs. They maintain no army, but they do have a coast guard and a counter-terrorism unit (which has actually gotten involved in Iraq, despite being nominally a police unit and not military).[/QUOTE] Fair point (didn't know that), but obviously pretty insignificant in the larger picture. There can of course be nitpicks, but the larger point remains - the US is spending a lot of money on its military, and really only a third of that "overspending" could be reasonably described as picking up slack from others, at least according to NATO's own recommendations.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52019740]Fair point (didn't know that), but obviously pretty insignificant in the larger picture. There can of course be nitpicks, but the larger point remains - the US is spending a lot of money on its military, and really only a third of that "overspending" could be reasonably described as picking up slack from others, at least according to NATO's own recommendations.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, I totally agree that Iceland's lack of spending is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. It changes your final number by what, $0.3B? 0,3 if you use a weird commie system of marking decimal places? That's nothing - and Canada helps cover them now anyways.
[img]https://i.redd.it/5p5zdn5nfsny.jpg[/img] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Image macro" - Sgt Doom))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=gman003-main;52019883]Oh yeah, I totally agree that Iceland's lack of spending is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. It changes your final number by what, $0.3B? 0,3 if you use a weird commie system of marking decimal places? That's nothing - and Canada helps cover them now anyways.[/QUOTE] Really I prefer periods, but the Danish version of Excel enforces a commie comma. And yeah, wasn't trying to imply you didn't agree.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52019272][URL="https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/the-german-government-denies-reports-that-trump-gave-merkel?utm_term=.oj1xMqjjry#.vnBbygBBpP"]Fake News[/URL][/QUOTE] Can this thread be locked? Enough people have been baited by it
[QUOTE=gman003-main;52015378]The US might be spending more, but are we actually getting as much as other countries are out of our dollars? Our military spending is incredibly wasteful - I know at one point we were buying more M1s of the same type that we were simultaneously surplussing, thanks to Congress using it as a jobs program. I suspect that, if we adjusted for waste, price-gouging and inefficiency, we would be barely meeting the 2% goal ourselves.[/QUOTE] M1 what?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.